Heartland Health Research Alliance, 10526 SE Vashon Vista Drive, Port Orchard, WA, 98367, USA.
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Environ Health. 2021 Aug 3;20(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00773-4.
Flaws in the science supporting pesticide risk assessment and regulation stand in the way of progress in mitigating the human health impacts of pesticides. Critical problems include the scope of regulatory testing protocols, the near-total focus on pure active ingredients rather than formulated products, lack of publicly accessible information on co-formulants, excessive reliance on industry-supported studies coupled with reticence to incorporate published results in the risk assessment process, and failure to take advantage of new scientific opportunities and advances, e.g. biomonitoring and "omics" technologies.
Problems in pesticide risk assessment are identified and linked to study design, data, and methodological shortcomings. Steps and strategies are presented that have potential to deepen scientific knowledge of pesticide toxicity, exposures, and risks. We propose four solutions: (1) End near-sole reliance in regulatory decision-making on industry-supported studies by supporting and relying more heavily on independent science, especially for core toxicology studies. The cost of conducting core toxicology studies at labs not affiliated with or funded directly by pesticide registrants should be covered via fees paid by manufacturers to public agencies. (2) Regulators should place more weight on mechanistic data and low-dose studies within the range of contemporary exposures. (3) Regulators, public health agencies, and funders should increase the share of exposure-assessment resources that produce direct measures of concentrations in bodily fluids and tissues. Human biomonitoring is vital in order to quickly identify rising exposures among vulnerable populations including applicators, pregnant women, and children. (4) Scientific tools across disciplines can accelerate progress in risk assessments if integrated more effectively. New genetic and metabolomic markers of adverse health impacts and heritable epigenetic impacts are emerging and should be included more routinely in risk assessment to effectively prevent disease.
Preventing adverse public health outcomes triggered or made worse by exposure to pesticides will require changes in policy and risk assessment procedures, more science free of industry influence, and innovative strategies that blend traditional methods with new tools and mechanistic insights.
支持农药风险评估和监管的科学存在缺陷，阻碍了减轻农药对人类健康影响的进展。关键问题包括监管测试方案的范围、几乎完全关注纯活性成分而不是配方产品、缺乏可公开获取的关于共溶剂的信息、过度依赖行业支持的研究，同时不愿将已发表的结果纳入风险评估过程，以及未能利用新的科学机会和进展，例如生物监测和“组学”技术。
确定了农药风险评估中的问题，并将其与研究设计、数据和方法学缺陷联系起来。提出了一些有潜力加深对农药毒性、暴露和风险的科学认识的步骤和策略。我们提出了四个解决方案：（1）通过支持和更多地依赖独立科学，特别是对于核心毒理学研究，结束监管决策中对行业支持的研究近乎唯一的依赖。不隶属于或不由农药注册人直接资助的实验室进行核心毒理学研究的费用应由制造商向公共机构支付的费用支付。（2）监管机构应更加重视机制数据和当代暴露范围内的低剂量研究。（3）监管机构、公共卫生机构和资助者应增加直接测量体液和组织中浓度的暴露评估资源份额。人体生物监测对于快速识别包括施药者、孕妇和儿童在内的弱势群体的上升暴露至关重要。（4）如果更有效地整合跨学科的科学工具，可以加速风险评估的进展。新的遗传和代谢组学标志物正在出现，这些标志物可作为不利健康影响和可遗传表观遗传影响的标志物，应更常规地纳入风险评估，以有效预防疾病。
要防止因接触农药而引发或加剧的不良公共卫生后果，需要改变政策和风险评估程序，减少受行业影响的科学，并采用将传统方法与新工具和机制见解融合的创新策略。
